Talk:The Jem'Hadar (episode)
Featured article statues * Self nomination. Probably seems pretentious for a newcomer to nominate an article he wrote, but I think it's a quality article about an ep that opened the door for the best story arc in Trek history. --Schrei 00:05, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Huge support' This article is very well wrtien, extensive, complete and perfect. I also agree with you. The Dominion War was the best story in Trek history by far, no doubt about it. Tobyk777 00:46, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' A great summary, with good images and a lot of background information. Tough Little Ship 10:57, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I don't think that it's at all pretentious for a newcomer to self-nominate - I nominated quite early on. I tidied up the article slightly but it definitely deserves featured status, IMHO.--Scimitar 13:04, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support', I found it in the recent changes list, I love it. Cabal *'Support'--Well written good use of pictures--Kahless 03:56, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) :To give credit where credit it's due, Tough Little Ship did some of the picture work after I nominated it for featured status. Good job with that by the way. :) --Schrei 07:07, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support', although some of the images seem to be in slightly inappropriate places, where the relevant text is the following paragraph. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 09:42, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::* I am still support but am thinking that maybe "The Odyssey and a Jem'Hadar ship" PIC shoudl be deleted and a PIC of the Odyssey being rammed would have more of an impact.(No Pun intended)--Kahless 07:23, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I'm curious about the placement of the first two images? I'm speaking of the image of the Odyssey after it was rammed and of talak talan exiting the forcefield -- both found in the wiki sidebar. They seem oddly misplaced -- and out of order. --Alan del Beccio 05:27, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Those can be blamed on me; If I remember correctly, he asked something about the first two pics on the sidebar and I suggested pics from the first few scenes, or if non-applicable, pics that would describe the episode as a whole. --AJHalliwell **I replaced the image of the Jem'Hadar walking through the forcefield, but the Odyssey pic seems in line with other episodes, unless you want that particular image moved down the page (similar to what Kahless mentioned) for impact. --Schrei 06:07, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Featured'--Alan del Beccio 08:29, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC) Just a small note... Maybe its just me, but why didnt the vorta "Bow down" (figuratively) to Odo like they do in later episodes? he is a changeling, after all... another goof: 2% C02 in the atmosphere would've made the humans pretty nauseous. The bowing to the Founder "goof" As stated: Writer/producer Ira Steven Behr admits that mistakes were made in the process of defining the personality and nature of the Vorta. This is most evident in the lack of telekinetic powers among later Vorta characters, and the fact that Eris did nothing to acknowledge Odo as a Founder. Well, actually, how should the Vorta have known that Odo was a changling or a potential Founder? What is a Founder to look like? When Odo arrives at the Founder's homeworld in the following episode(s), the female changling adapts his version of a humanoid form to make him feel at home, including mimicing his inability to properly form a not-so-smooth face with a somewhat undefined nose and simple ears. But that's NOT what a changling looks like. As I understand it, a changling's "real" form is the liquid state. Anything else is therefore kind of "replicated" or at least "mimiced". So I fail to see how this particular issue could be a continuity error as the Vorta - if not genetically engineered to always recognize a changling regardless what form he/she takes - could not possibly have known of Odo. Am I wrong in my assumtions? Vren Lyet 11:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :It's debatable. If the Dominion has been spying long enough, it should already know of Odo. Future Vorta and Jem'Hadar know who Odo is or what he is when they see him; many refering to him as a founder, without seeming to know who Odo is specifically. This implys that whatever the reason, they can tell. TheHYPO 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ::Jem'Hadar are engineered to recognize founders, seems logical that the vorta are too, since they are produced by the dominion as well (although they are way less dangerous...).Jackoverfull :::I think this note should be modified to remove mention of the "Founder goof." There is nothing canon to indicate that the Dominion (or even only the Changelings) knew that there was a member of their race on Deep Space Nine at that time. Remember that the Jem'Hadar fired on Odo's runabout in this episode, while in "The Ship" the Jem'hadar commit suicide after allowing a Founder to die. This is all speculation of course, but I see no reason to indicate a possible continuity error in an already long article. ::::I don't think there even is a "founder goof" - the Founders themselves didn't expect Odo back for 300 more years (The Search II), and as far as we saw, Odo didn't shift in front of Eris. There was no reason for the Founders to tell anyone about Odo yet, so no reason Eris would have necessarily even known Odo was a Changeling. The evidence for genetically programmed recognition in The Abandoned was after the child Jem'Hadar saw Odo shift. Izkata 17:36, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Destruction? The Odyssey was the third Galaxy-class starship destroyed onscreen, following the USS Yamato and the USS Enterprise-D, which has been destroyed three times during the run of TNG, in the episodes TNG: "Contagion", "Time Squared", "Cause and Effect". This is a confusing statement. It seems to imply that the Enterprise D had been destroyed 3 times during the run of TNG, but the D wasn't destroyed in Contagion. It was, however, destroyed in All Good things (at least two versions of it were) - this is no more "real" than in either Time Squared or Cause and Effect, though. TheHYPO 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Morn What does Morn say in the German version of the episode?Chimeradave 00:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC) : Did you try asking on the German version of MA? --Alan 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I don't speak German, I tried to translate it, I think it said that Morn said "umm ahh" and "well then." Is that correct?Chimeradave 00:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :That translation is correct. I know this was long ago, but for the next who commes by. --herges 07:28, June 5, 2010 (UTC) :Doesn't he speak in the English version too? At about 3:09, if you listen carefully, you can hear him saying "aah", although it is very quiet. In German he says "ach äh" as though he is preparing a statement. -- 20:14, June 26, 2010 (UTC) He is trying to say something, thats the "Ach eh" thats what the other posters are refering to. But when Quark ignores him, he says: "Dann nich" which I cant translate very well. Possibly the best translation would be "forget about it" but in german, "dann nich" isnt much more then *sigh*. Something you whisper when youre ignored and decide to go away, speaking to yourself. Speculation Both added by an anon today, both seem to be very speculative. Feel free to re-add if you feel it isn't. :It also seems to be no coincidence that the Dominion were introduced in the season finale after the end of The Next Generation. With the end of that series, DS9 was able to introduce more serialized aspects that affected the whole galaxy, which, had TNG still been running, would have had to affect the events of that series. and :A similar upgrade in technology after encountering a superior technological enemy seems to have occurred in the alternate timeline, after the ''Narada destroyed the , thus leading to the Enterprise being a totally different, technically superior ship, in 2009's .'' Typos fixed and properly formatted too. -- sulfur 18:43, October 24, 2009 (UTC) Removed * The Odyssey bridge is of a completely different configuration than the Enterprise-D bridge. It is possible that was unable to use the bridge set from The Next Generation as was being filmed around this time. Speculation unless it is definitive that was the reason the bridge was different.--31dot 17:38, April 11, 2011 (UTC) :The Odyssey article and the Galaxy-class article do mention this, and it seems rather reasonable to assume that the early scenes from Generations (pre-battle) were being filmed at that time, or at the very least, that the Enterprise-D bridge was being upgraded for Generations. 19:06, April 27, 2015 (UTC) Also removed :This was somewhat controversial among ''Star Trek fans, some of whom felt that Star Trek was not intended to be shown in this manner. However, others felt it was the natural way for a series like DS9 to progress.'' Removed the above. We don't note what "some fans" thought. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:12, April 17, 2015 (UTC) Stardate Where is the stardate for this episode from, I'm not finding it in the transcript, and the bg note on this was changed awhile back from "was" to "is", suggesting that maybe it's from the script? - 20:11, July 8, 2011 (UTC) :I skimmed the script and didn't see it, nor is it on the DVDs.--31dot 01:26, July 9, 2011 (UTC) Pel? Does anyone else notice the appearance of or a strong look-a-like at about 3mins 30secs? Some mention of this should be added to the article. 05:19, January 13, 2013 (UTC) :I'd need to see a screenshot(you would have to register a username to post one), but I'm fairly sure it's not Pel, and just a "look-a-like" would not be notable. 31dot (talk) 10:07, January 13, 2013 (UTC) Re-used TNG footage? Looking at the shot of the Odyssey docked at DS9, if you look closely, it appears that the ship is labeled NCC-1701-D and NOT NCC-71832. Should we bother noting this? 19:01, April 27, 2015 (UTC) :We generally do not note minor production errors like this as it is a nitpick. 31dot (talk) 19:21, April 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Noting re-used footage is not a nitpick, it is production background. We have entire articles on re-used models. We note the use of stock footage from ST VI in Star Trek Generations. Hell, we note that a tank of water in that movie is used in a Voyager episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:26, April 28, 2015 (UTC) :::I agree. If the model was re-used and the Enterprise registration is visible on camera that's valid background information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:56, April 28, 2015 (UTC) ::::Question asker here. I was asking because A. I remember reading about the possibility raised in Phil Farrand's book on DS9, B. looking at some images from this episode on Trekcore, and C. the image for the article. However I will grant that that last one might be a false positive, as it appears to have been yanked from the remastered version of Birthright, Part 1. Looking at an image on Trekcore now, it looks very much like the footage from Birthright was used here, unless the VFX people chose to redo the Birthright shots movement for movement. ::::As an aside, it IS common knowledge (and referenced in the article on the Galaxy-class filming model) that the four-foot Enterprise-D filming model was used for this episode. Captain Spadaro (talk) 21:05, May 27, 2015 (UTC) Okay, but that's not the way the question was phrased, which is why I gave that reply. From where was the footage reused? 31dot (talk) 09:50, April 28, 2015 (UTC) ::That's exactly how it was phrased. They titled the topic to be about reused footage and asked if it should be noted. They didn't write a nitpick, you chose to just dismiss them. This is not very welcoming on your part. Instead of dismissing new arrivals because you don't like the precise method of their writing (you were nitpicking them!), how about you try to encourage participation by making a positive suggestion? --OuroborosCobra talk 14:04, April 28, 2015 (UTC) :::"Birthright" actually reused the footage as well, the shot is from . -- DS9 Forever (talk) 22:05, May 27, 2015 (UTC) ::::Just without Bajor in the background, so technically it's modified stock footage, like the footage of the 1701-A in Spacedock in the 6th film. Captain Spadaro (talk) 22:19, May 27, 2015 (UTC) :I'm sorry for giving offense but I can only go by how I read the question. 31dot (talk) 23:28, May 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Its cool. Captain Spadaro (talk) 03:47, May 30, 2015 (UTC) Added info about the footage re-use, unless someone can definitively prove its not re-used footage. Captain Spadaro (talk) 01:50, June 2, 2015 (UTC) This one's gone too!?--Archer4real (talk) 14:31, November 1, 2015 (UTC)